Peikoff and Sartre

[NickOtani]

…the Existentialism of the fifties and the sixties, held that reality is absurd and that irrational passion is the only means of knowledge. In such a world, said Sartre, man is the controller of his destiny, except that he cannot control it because his mind is helpless; so freedom is a “curse,” and man’s fate is fear, trembling, nausea—from which there s “no exit,” since thought is self-deception, system-building is self-deception, a rational ethics is self-deception. All one can do, therefore, is make a blind, activist commitment to some course, or join the Zen Buddhists in merging with a superior dimension, or praise Fidel Castro as the hero o the century, or do something else, anything else, whatever anyone chooses to feel. (This is what Existentialists describe as “individualism.”)

--Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982, pp. 134-135

Absurdism in Existentialism is the realization that there is no reason for our existence. We find ourselves here. We didn’t ask to be here. Yes, we are special in that nobody else is exactly like us. We are individuals. However, the world would go on just fine without us. People die every day. We would like to think it matters that we exist, at least to ourselves and some other people, but we must also understand that, in the larger scheme of things, it doesn’t. We are both special and not special. It’s a paradox. It’s a contradiction. It is A is both A and not A, but it is still true.

Passion in Existentialism is what makes us uniquely human, not reason, which a computer program possesses. We feel. We are not simply cold, impersonal robots. It is through our passion that we empathize with others and understand fairness, justice. It is not right to treat people as means to an end. We are each ends in ourselves. And, it is through our passion that we strive to get the most out of life, not just waiting for the rationally safe move. We take risks. We work without a net. We sometimes leap before looking, yet we know we are responsible or what happens to us, not some reality over which we have no control. We are in the moment, making decisions as we go, not following some pre-determined logical path. We are forging our own paths. We don’t subjugate ourselves to God, society, or logic. We are the subjects which make things happen, not the objects which get acted upon.

Knowledge, for the Existentialist, is much like the knowing one’s self about which Plato spoke. Knowledge of the outside world, the in-itself, comes through us, the for-itself. Objects are complete and fixed, yet humans are incomplete, still in a process of becoming, participating in working on our own natures, essences.

What does Sartre mean by “existence before essence? He means that there is not some pre-existing mold into which he was poured or some prior purpose for his being here on earth. Reality is absurd, and we really have no reason for our existence which we can discover. We have to create it. We don't find our purpose, we make it. That's what freedom is. We choose our projects and put meaning into our lives. We have to take responsibility for our essences. We are what we do. What does this mean? It means we aren’t heroes simply because we think we are. If we run away instead of taking a stand, we are what we do.

We are not objects to be shaped and molded by external stimuli over which we have no control. We are not victims of our environment. We are subjects. Our natures are not fixed and completed, as are the natures of the things-in-themselves, the things without freedom. We are incomplete and participate in the creation of our own natures. We are the things-for-themselves, and we are still in a process of becoming. We exist, become aware of our existence, and then work on our essences. Existence prior to essence.

Is freedom a curse? Does it lead to fear and trembling, nausea, and is there no exit? First, if we are subjects, if we participate in creating our own natures, if we are what we do; then we must choose. Not choosing is still a choice. We have no choice but to choose. We are, as Sartre said, “forced into freedom.” Second, yes, this can be scary at first. We find ourselves alone. We have to take responsibility for ourselves. We have no net, no training wheels, no crutches, and no security blankets. We have been kicked out of the nest. Of course we will be anxious for awhile. However, once we live on our own and get used to it, we prefer it to the security of going back to live with our parents, or even with the imaginary parent in the sky. We prefer to be independent.

Is there self-deception? You bet there is. People do deceive themselves that cheating is better than being authentic. They put their blinders on and convince themselves that being drunk all day is better than accomplishing a challenging task which could lead to self-actualization. They allow themselves to be deceived by evangelists who promise them everlasting life. Psychoanalysis works on getting people to talk and realize some suppressed thought which is bothering them. When it comes out, they are free of its influence over them.

Is system-building a self-deception? It could be. Some of these systems are nice to look at, like homes in magazines which show off beautiful homes. However, like some of those homes which are nice to look at but impossible to live in, systems also tend to be impractical. Their foundations crumble when people need them the most. (The Spinoza of Elm Street found this out, and so did Rand when she had a crises.)

There is a difference between Existentialism and Zen Buddhism, even if the samsara and the process of becoming aspects of these philosophies are the same. And, yes, Sartre was a leftist activist who supported Castro for awhile and then broke with him when Castro imprisoned a Cuban poet, Heberto Padilla, for “counterrevolutionary attitudes.” Sartre still stood for freedom, as he did when he fought in the French resistance during World War II.

There is a lot more to Existentialism and Jean Paul Sartre than this, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything Sartre said and did. However, my point is that if we read Peikoff and nothing more, we get a very slanted and incomplete picture of Sartre’s philosophy, among the philosophies of several other philosophers. I think respectable philosophers should be a bit more respectful of each other, don’t you? We can present each other’s views in the most persuasive light and then point out the problems if there are any. (The way I presented Pascal’s wager.) It’s a bit tacky and ineffective, even counter-effective, to characterize and ridicule someone’s views the way Peikoff presented Sartre.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Grinder]

Nick, do you have some direct quotes from Sartre you could put up that would contradict Peikoff? I think your central thesis that Peikoff has garbled the thought of Existentialism as a school and Sartre in particular as a philosopher would be much stronger for it. You also seem to be skating around saying directly whether or not you think this garbling by Peikoff is intentional. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Beyond that:

Knowledge, for the Existentialist, is much like the knowing one’s self about which Plato spoke.

This is really Plato repeaing via Socrates an inscription at Delphi, correct?

Is system-building a self-deception?  It could be. Some of these systems are nice to look at, like homes in magazines which show off beautiful homes. However, like some of those homes which are nice to look at but impossible to live in, systems also tend to be impractical. Their foundations crumble when people need them the most.

(The Spinoza of Elm Street found this out,

Do you mean Singer's short story the Spinoza of Market Street, or maybe that Freddy Krueger spent time reading Spinoza? 8-[

and so did Rand when she had a crises.)  

If this is what you think, you should probably make this a whole separate thread, with examples, where Objectivism faile Ayn Rand, or vice versa, perhaps.

Sartre still stood for freedom, as he did when he fought in the French resistance during World War II.

Simply because you're fighting against one form totalitarianism is no guarantee that you stand for freedom, or that you don't support another kind of totalitarianism. Besides, my understanding is that his total contribution to the resistance consisted of newspaper columns in a banned publication. Certainly he was no collaborationist with the Nazis, but it is hardly the sort of thing I would describe as having "fought" against them.

[NickOtani]

Nick, do you have some direct quotes from Sartre you could put up that would contradict Peikoff? I think your central thesis that Peikoff has garbled the thought of Existentialism as a school and Sartre in particular as a philosopher would be much stronger for it. You also seem to be skating around saying directly whether or not you think this garbling by Peikoff is intentional. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I said that if we read Peikoff and nothing more, we get a very slanted and incomplete picture of Sartre’s philosophy. Peikoff may be quoting Sartre correctly, but dropping a line like “…reality is absurd and irrational passion is the only means of knowledge,” does not explain much. It doesn’t present Sartre in his most persuasive light. Someone could read that and say, “Gee, I’m glad I haven’t gotten into that philosophy. It sounds crazy.”

However, if someone explains a little more and talks about what absudism means in Existentialism and talks about the role passion plays, it may not seem so strange.

My intent in writing that post was to take some of the concepts Peikoff was skimming over and give them a little more of an airing. People may still disagree with Sartre and agree with Peikoff, but they learn a little more about the “existence before essence,” the man is controller of his destiny because he is incomplete and “forced into freedom,” the fear and trembling and nausea, and the idea of self-deception, thinking one may have it together when one may not. A man is in self-deception if he thinks he is a hero when he runs away from confrontations. He is what he does. There is important stuff here which Peikoff didn’t develop. He merely mentioned it, in a way which would be unflattering to Sartre.

Do you mean Singer's short story the Spinoza of Market Street, or maybe that Freddy Krueger spent time reading Spinoza?  

Yes, you really caught me there. I screwed-up. I realized it later but decided not to go back in and edit.

If this is what you think, you should probably make this a whole separate thread, with examples, where Objectivism faile Ayn Rand, or vice versa, perhaps.

Someone can probably find, I think it is in Barbara Brandon’s biography, where Rand said, in a moment of dejection, that Objectivism was helping everyone but her. This could be a separate thread. My point, though, is that lots of these issues Peikoff stuck in a single paragraph could be a separate thread.

Simply because you're fighting against one form totalitarianism is no guarantee that you stand for freedom, or that you don't support another kind of totalitarianism. Besides, my understanding is that his total contribution to the resistance consisted of newspaper columns in a banned publication. Certainly he was no collaborationist with the Nazis, but it is hardly the sort of thing I would describe as having "fought" against them.

Okay, he worked against the Nazis. At least he didn’t become one, like Heidegger did. I don’t agree with Sartre’s Marxism or even with all of his Existentialism, but I think it is kind’a tacky to characterize his philosophy and discredit it further by tying it to political views at one point in the man’s life. It just doesn’t paint an objective picture.

I intend to go further now and pull out other philosophers and philosophies I think Peikoff shortchanged. Please feel free to disagree with me and challenge me when you want. I enjoy talking with people who know their stuff. It’s what I came to this board to find.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Grinder]

Thanks for the clarification, though I'm still a bit confused whether what you're calling "slant" by Peikoff equals intent or sloppiness, though it sounds like you're saying you think it was more in the way of sloppiness.

I intend to go further now and pull out other philosophers and philosophies I think Peikoff shortchanged. Please feel free to disagree with me and challenge me when you want. I enjoy talking with people who know their stuff. It’s what I came to this board to find.

The sad part is, I admit that I don't really know my stuff. Most of my reading to this point has been surveys of philosophy, rather than original sources, and my lack of background in something like formal logic is just about complete as well. I guess I can get by in most message board discussions, but the lack of real understanding on my part of, well, a whole lot of things is just too depressing for me to spend much time pondering. Just warning you in advance that I can and do come out with some bone-headed things from time to time.

And Nick, I'm no fan of The Ominous Parallels, though I must admit I would need to re-read it before I make any direct criticisms. In a general way I just wasn't convinced of his main point that a "mixed" economy will move inevitably to a "statist" one. (Note that I'm not saying it couldn't happen that way, simply that I don't think he proved his point.) Doubtless that would be rank heresy on an discussion board with an ARI orientation, but hopefully the gang here will allow me to slide on that point. Especially as I am not prepared to argue it at the moment, though I'd certainly read with interest anything anyone else has to say on it, pro or con.

[NickOtani]

Thanks for the clarification, though I'm still a bit confused whether what you're calling "slant" by Peikoff equals intent or sloppiness, though it sounds like you're saying you think it was more in the way of sloppiness.

I suspect it was both. I can’t imagine Peikoff actually read Being and Nothingness and thought about it a lot. He most likely read some summaries of Sartre and his Existentialism and put together words associated with it. “Nausea,” and “No Exit,” are works by Sartre, but “Fear and Trembling” is a work by Kierkegaard. Still, putting all those titles together makes Existentialism look kind of dark, doesn’t it?

I also know that Peikoff spent many years writing the Ominous Parallels,and Rand was constantly looking over his shoulder. So, it wasn’t sloppy in the way that one doesn’t know what he or she is saying. It was important to Peikoff and Rand that views with which they disagreed would not sound too persuasive. Everything in that book had to point to the conclusion that Kant and Hegel influenced philosophy in such a way that brought about Nazism and that anything which isn’t Objectivism is anti-reason and a threat to freedom. (I’m getting a little carried away here, but this is my impression.)

As I said, there are differences between Zen Buddhism and Existentialism. They both may embrace the idea of reality as a process, like the flowing river in Hesse’s Siddhartha, Eastern philosophies tend to seek a blending in with the whole, withdrawing, eliminating the self. Existentialism, on the other hand, strives to be involved with life, to get the most out of living.

Now, Rand has put Existentialism and Zen Buddhism together several times and denounced them with the same broad brush, philosophies for barefoot savages, and Peikoff had to follow this. This is a purposive slant, but it s also kind’a sloppy, isn’t it?

The sad part is, I admit that I don't really know my stuff. Most of my reading to this point has been surveys of philosophy, rather than original sources, and my lack of background in something like formal logic is just about complete as well.  I guess I can get by in most message board discussions, but the lack of real understanding on my part of, well, a whole lot of things is just too depressing for me to spend much time pondering. Just warning you in advance that I can and do come out with some bone-headed things from time to time.

If your surveys are good, they might be better than the surveys Peikoff provides. I think it is good that you are interested in this stuff and striving to understand it more. You are not happy with your ignorance. It depresses you. And you are not trying to deceive anyone. Socrates told Meno he was closer to the truth because he, Meno, admitted he was confused. He’d be more willing to look for it if he didn’t think he already had it. Socrates, himself, said that his wisdom was the wisdom of someone who was wise enough to know he wasn’t wise. And, if we can believe Mill when he says wisdom s a qualitative pleasure, that he’d rather be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool, then perhaps that sort of qualitative happiness can outweigh you depression at not knowing everything yet. (However, don’t tell this to the fools. They might get offended. After all, Socrates was sentenced to death.)

Bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

I can’t imagine Peikoff actually read Being and Nothingness and thought about it a lot. He most likely read some summaries of Sartre and his Existentialism and put together words associated with it. “Nausea,” and “No Exit,”  are works by Sartre, but “Fear and Trembling” is a work by Kierkegaard. Still, putting all those titles together makes Existentialism look kind of dark, doesn’t it?

leonard@peikoff.com

Why don't you email and ask him?

[NickOtani]

Why don't you email and ask him?

I could. I generally like to have discussions out in the open, where there is a gallery of spectators who might notice when someone is committing a fallacy or making a mistake. I am trying to take a public stand and correct some public remarks Peikoff made. If he wants to come here and present his side, I would welcome it. He is also welcome on my board.

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

Why don't you email and ask him?

I could. I generally like to have discussions out in the open, where there is a gallery of spectators who might notice when someone is committing a fallacy or making a mistake. I am trying to take a public stand and correct some public remarks Peikoff made. If he wants to come here and present his side, I would welcome it. He is also welcome on my board.

bis bald,

Nick

Actually there is a big difference between discussing what someone wrote and claiming that they did not read something and then critizing them for it. It is very irresponsible to claim that you believe that someone didn't read a certian author/book that they themselves are writing about. Between Dr. Peikoff's resume (Ph.d in Philosophy from NYU, Professor of Philosophy, and foremost Ayn Rand scholar) and your backless post, and unless you have information otherwise, then it is prudent to believe that he probably read the book as that is the protocol for academic writing and research.

Dustan

[NickOtani]

If I say I "suspect" someone didn't read a book and think about it carefully, or "couldn't imagine he did," that's not the same as a "claim."

I said I couldn't imagine he read Being and Nothingness and thought about it a lot, and I supported that suspicion with fuller information on the brief catch phrases and buzz words he used. Anyone could have read a few articles about Sartre and Existentialism and put that paragraph together. I could have done it.

Ph.D's do not impress me. I could have one if had enough money to complete a few more semsters of college and turn in a dissertation. I do read other Ph.D's, like William F. O'Neill, who criticize Rand and Peikoff.

Many academic authorities have pointed out that Bertrand Russell probably didn't read all the works of the philosophers he wrote about in The History of Western Philosophy. So, I don't think I'm breaking any protocol they have not broken.

I appreciate your constant vigilance, Dustan. You make me justify myself. Are you willing to be as critical of Peikoff as you are of me?

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

If I say I "suspect" someone didn't read a book and think about it carefully, or "couldn't imagine he did," that's not the same as a "claim."  

 

I said I couldn't imagine he read Being and Nothingness and thought about it a lot, and I supported that suspicion with fuller information on the brief catch phrases and buzz words he used. Anyone could have read a few articles about Sartre and Existentialism and put that paragraph together. I could have done it.

Ph.D's do not impress me. I could have one if had enough money to complete a few more semsters of college and turn in a dissertation. I do read other Ph.D's, like William F. O'Neill, who criticize Rand and Peikoff.

Many academic authorities have pointed out that Bertrand Russell probably didn't read all the works of the philosophers he wrote about in The History of Western Philosophy. So, I don't think I'm breaking any protocol they have not broken.

I appreciate your constant vigilance, Dustan. You make me justify myself. Are you willing to be as critical of Peikoff as you are of me?

bis bald,

Nick

If I believe some one has made an error of judgement or reason I am as just as critical. And Ph.d's do not come out of cracker jack boxes, especially ones from NYU. They are called credentials for a reason, for example, Noam Chomsky has a Ph.d and I usually do not agree with him, but I do deeply respect him for what he has accomplished in academia.

Also, isn't not being able to imagine Peikoff reading Sartre worse than claiming that he didnot. When claiming you actually have to have some basis for the claim, while "not being able to imagine" ignores reality (Peikoff is a human with the abliity to read, Sartre's work is readily available, therefore it is easy to imagine him reading it). If you truely want to be critical of a work, criticize it, doen't conjecture, you know the saying about assuming. I haven't had a whole lot of time lately to critically read all that has been posted because I am having to work/travel alot, but I was glancing over the all of the articles for future consideration and when I see such a comment in a discussion it sticks out and discredits the whole thing before I even begin to analyze it, the comment did not do anything to further your argument. It is irresponisble because it does not do justice to Peikoff and attempts to discredit him by conjecture and it is also irresponsible to yourself because most intelligent readers will not be fooled by the remark, and instead will negatively attribute it to some flaw in you. It is the type of tactic that politicians use.

And lastly, I'm not sure if you want to obtain a Ph.d or not. But please do not use anything as an excuse to prevent you from doing what you want. If you do want a Ph.d either find the funding through loans or grants, or research ways to make money then use that money to pay for your Ph.d. Even Sartre said that we are responsible for who we are and that we create ourselves, what ever you want there is a way to do it more than likely.

Dustan

[Roger Bissell]

Leonard Peikoff wrote a marvelous Ph.D. dissertation on the Law of Contradiction. He did it in 1964 at NYU under the guidance of renowned Marxist-Pragmatist professor Sidney Hook. It traces the LOC from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and post-Kantian philosophers (including logical positivists and linguistic analysts). My friend Douglas Rasmussen (another Ph.D., more of the Neo-Aristotelian ilk, but critically sympathetic to Objectivism) loaned me his copy to read, and I found it thoroughly competent and thoroughly scholarly -- a really good piece of writing in the history of philosophy. (Interestingly, Peikoff now eschews his dissertation, claiming that it was written under duress in order to get his doctorate.) If anyone is interested, it is probably still available from University Microfilms (or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays) in Xerox format; look for it under the name "Sylvan Leonard Peikoff."

Peikoff also wrote a couple of really decent essays for scholarly journals back in the 70s or 80s. I forget their titles and the name of the journal, but I believe it was a Catholic journal specializing in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy.

REB

[NickOtani]

Peikoff may have read Being and Nothingness,and he may not have. I suspect he did not, based on what I know about it and the paragraph I quote above. I have claimed that that paragraph is not a fair and objective representation of Sartre and his existentialism, and I think I built a case supporting that claim. I don't see anyone here challenging my evidence and reasoning supporting that claim.

bis bald,

Nick

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

When and where did Leonard Peikoff repudiate his dissertation? Is this repudiation part of the oral tradition within ARI circles, or did he address it in print or commercially available lecture recordings?

Even more importantly, what does Peikoff now think he got wrong in his dissertation?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Nick,

Leonard Peikoff says precious little about existentialism in OPAR. He declares in one of his dismissive footnotes that "Existentialism, as an orgy of voluntarism, necessarily implies man's utter helplessness..." (p. 469, n. 21).

He gave it more coverage in his lectures on Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present (which I heard on tape in the early 1970s).

It's been a while now... but I remember somewhat more of an emphasis on Heidegger than on Sartre. What Peikoff had to say about Heidegger seemed to derive mostly from the second half of Being and Time: Angst, das Nichts, and such (the very parts that, say, Hubert Dreyfus doesn't like). "What is Dasein's fate? Angst!" I also recall his attributing to Heidegger a view that he dubbed "the cognitive efficacy of boredom." He of course let his audience know that Heidegger embraced Nazism.

Kierkegaard, he said, would have been "an obscure 19th century irrationalist" had 20th century existentialists not rediscovered him and identified him as a forebear. He emphasized Kierkegaard's conception of faith, linking him to Tertullian.

Peikoff went after Sartre's notion of free will, which he wanted to make sure would not be confused with Rand's. I would have to dig out my notebooks to find whether he went substantially beyond the position on Sartre that he took in The Ominous Parallels.

I recall a very quick reference to Zen Buddhism, emphasizing absurdism and the deliberate embrace of contradictions.

I certainly wouldn't take Peikoff to be an expert on any form of Buddhism. My impression at the time was that he'd read some things by Sartre--but I have no idea how much. I'm limited here by my own reading of Sartre, which has consisted mostly of his fiction, and all of that a long time ago. Since you know Being and Nothingness, and I don't, you're in a better position to judge whether Peikoff has read it.

Peikoff definitely knows his Aristotle--and his Kant (whether you buy his interpretation or not).

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that he has read more than a few excerpts from Herbert Spencer. Peikoff's treatment of Spencer in the Modern Philosophy course was once-over-lightly, and by the time he finished OPAR Peikoff apparently had forgotten the little that he'd learned. Claiming that Spencer borrowed from Darwin (as he does in OPAR) was downright boneheaded.

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Yes, Robert, Peikoff's derogatory remarks toward his doctoral dissertation were made in the Q-A session of one of his recorded lectures. I am way behind in my transcribing project, so I can't do a file search, but I'm pretty sure that his comments were made at some point during his 80's lecture series, "Understanding Objectivism."

When I said "eschew," I really meant that he was trying to discourage people from reading it. I don't know that he actually disagrees with what he said in it, so much as with how he said it. But we are hampered in getting his intended meaning not only by its being expressed in hard to access taped lectures, but by his insularity from private comments and questions. But perhaps I'm wrong about this. You are welcome to try emailing him. :-) (I smile, because I recently emailed him and got a very terse, dismissive, and rather ridiculous reply, when I offered him a free copy of my jazz duo CD.)

REB

[NickOtani]

Thanks, Robert.

I’m glad I’m not the only one to be critical of Peikoff and suspect he is not an authority on everything about which he writes.

Peikoff went after Sartre's notion of free will, which he wanted to make sure would not be confused with Rand's. I would have to dig out my notebooks to find whether he went substantially beyond the position on Sartre that he took in The Ominous Parallels.

Should we start another thread and get into this subject? I think Rand has a problem with her notion of freedom. First, she claims an objective reality governed by cause and effect, which would seem to conflict with freedom, but then she claims that man is free and this is not in conflict with determinism because man determines his behavior. I guess this is sort of a first cause argument, that man is the first cause, and it is self-evident, something we already know, and we would be immoral to deny it. Sartre’s existentialism identifies being-in-itself, roughly objects with fixed natures, and being-for-itself, roughly subjects, humans which are still in the process of becoming. We are free because we are not bound by the fixed and static and complete natures, essences, of objects, and we participate in creating our own natures. We resist the attempts to objectify us or to be in self-deception, where we objectify ourselves. I think this Existentialist model explains free-will better than the Objectivist model, but I’d like to discuss it.

I’m pretty sure Rand would object to the process of becoming, which is like the samsari of Hinduism and Buddhism. It is like saying A is becoming B, instead of A is A; that existence is becoming, rather than existence exists. This would make formal logic a little ineffective at describing reality, and the existentialist would agree; reality is absurd. Still, rather than be paralyzed by inaction by this, the Existentialist, even he or she has a little anxiety, takes the opportunity to put meaning into this otherwise meaningless existence by choosing projects. It is not like discovering some pre-existng purpose and following it, being a slave to reason, to a design. It is like being in an open field and forging a path with no reason to guide us. This is really free.

I think, like I said in other posts, Rand may place too much emphasis on reason, making reason a new kind of god to replace the one she rejects, and she wants us all to accept this as self-evident.

Well, I can go on and on. I’d like to see if someone will discuss this with me.

bis bald,

Nick

[Roger Bissell]

At the risk of thread-hijacking, I'll simply post here the details on the two journal articles Peikoff published:

Author: Leonard PeikoffTitle: 'Platonism's Inference from Logic to God'
Journal: 'International Studies in Philosophy', Vol. 16, p. 25-34, 1984.
Author: Leonard Peikoff
Title: 'Aristotle's Intuitive Induction'
Journal: 'The New Scholasticism', Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.
REB

[JennaW]

[explanation about Peikoff's philosophical writings]

So, was Peikoff practicing true objectivity when looking at philosophy or did he have some sort of bias? What did he disagree with Rand on?

[Roger Bissell]

If I may exaggerate (only) a bit, for effect: Peikoff's mind was very much like a sponge, very absorbent, very easily filled with whatever his current professor was teaching. As a result, he tended to get confused and misled (from Rand's perspective), and he often had to have his head rotated 180 degrees back to its normal position. This was Rand's function.

Seriously, Rand was more than once appalled at the philosophical detours his mind had taken, because of not being able to adequately deal with some of the mind-bending or otherwise horrendous views he was being taught, and she had to "straighten him out," to "exorcise the demons" of modern philosophy, so to speak.

I'm not making this up. It's what happened back in the 50s and 60s, when he was attending college and learning Objectivism from Rand "after hours."

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

When I said "eschew," I really meant that he was trying to discourage people from reading it.

In other words, it wasn't moralizing enough? Rand forbid he should talk in collegial style to professional philosophers. ;-)

Re your description of his "tend[ing] to get confused and misled (from Rand's perspective)," and thus "often ha[ving] to have his head rotated 180 degrees back to its normal position" --

In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions (since he knew that Rand's answers were right, so he had to "suppress" his sideshoot thinking until he'd gotten the right answers firmly enough in mind he could trust himself not to be misled. I heard this tape one Thanksgiving when one of the friends who spend Thanksgiving with us brought the course in which it appears for part of our Thanksgiving Seminar entertainment, but I might not have remembered correctly which of his taped lecture series that is.

--

Nick, I've been reading your posts when I've had time, and I'm curious about your views on the contrasts between Existentialism and Objectivism. But I'm not qualified to comment about original Existentialist sources, having read only a few, and those at minimum thirty years ago. (I read Either/Or about thirty years ago and much enjoyed its literary merit, though I hardly remember it from the standpoint of ideational perspective. Before that the only Existentialist original sources I read any of were excerpts when I was an undergraduate.)

Interesting your contrasting Rand as against existence preceding essence. Toward the end of May there was a Saturday Jungian workshop here (based on Marie -Louise von Franz's exegesis and elaboration of Aurora Consurgens, an alchemical text which she along with others believed was dictated based on visions of Thomas Aquinas as he neared death). The presenter contrasted Jung to Existentialism, saying that for Jung essence preceded existence -- that we come to the world with an individual "pattern" which our psyche attempts, in what Jung called the "individuation" process, to fulfill. Thus Jung as well as Rand differed from Existentialism, though in different ways.

Ellen

___

[JennaW]

In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to  suppress his questions (since he knew that Rand's answers were right, so he had to "suppress" his sideshoot thinking until he'd gotten the right answers firmly enough in mind he could trust himself not to be misled.

I guess I should ask him directly this, but since questioning appears to be "out": so how does suppressing one's questions help you "know" someone's "rightness"?

& How the hell can starting off "knowing someone is right so don't ask questions" be "good advice" for life? If he's intelligent, he really wouldn't say things like that.

My own life experience was very different: because I questioned things, and got challenged for it, in the end I got learn far more than if I hadn't-- and not only that-- it also helped me establish a very firm position on who *I* was/am as a person, and a freedom to disagree and be fine with it.

This is entirely frustrating. When I find out that someone can't/won't have their *own* ideas, and in addition tell others not to question things, I lose interest fast. He (Peikoff) might be a super-nice guy face-to-face, but even then, there's some interest lost...

[Dragonfly]

I've only read two books/articles by Peikoff: The Ominous Parallels and The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, and I found both so terribly bad that I'm not interested in reading more from him.

[Ellen Stuttle]

About Leonard Peikoff's "suppressing"...I feel a sense of pity for his plight, because, you see, she'd have written him off if he hadn't managed to "get a grip" and stop coming up with all these questions and doubts. And her writing him off would have felt to him like a death sentence. He was in a bind, and I don't know what other recourse, within what he would have experienced as his options, he could have taken. But I wish he hadn't said what he did in his lecture as advice to others.

All of which has gotten afield from Existentialism, although maybe Nick can see some connection in terms of creating one's "essence."

(Dragonfly, btw, I've never read most of OPAR myself. I read the part on volition first and became so irritated by how confused I found that presentation, I never worked up the resolve to read the rest, though I'm told by a friend whose opinion I generally find a pretty reliable indicator of how I'll react that the rest of the book is better. I read The Ominous Parallels quite a number of years ago and had various severe criticisms of it, the details of which I've grown fuzzy about. I reread the A-S article back when you were criticizing that on NB's list. I thought your criticisms were mostly on target, although I have disagreements with your own views on the subject. I'm still hoping that maybe in the fall we can get into some of the areas where our views diverge.)

Ellen

___

[JennaW]

Ayn Rand or not, if someone-- anyone-- is going to write me off for asking questions, my response is a big: "F*** you!" Then I turn my back and make my own life, with my own ideas.

I think people are in binds sometimes because they put themselves there, psychologically, intellectually, and/or emotionally. It *is* pitiful, especially more so if they go around saying how intelligent they are, yet not realize what kind of position they themselves are in (all the while knowing *so* damn much about where other people are at and to preach about it).

Which is why I think intelligence is not the ultimate goal, it's not the top of the mountain. Intelligence is nothing without insight and the goal of wisdom; it doesn't just stop at high IQ points or logical extrapolations.

A book titled "The Ominous Parallels" just smacks of some kind of finger pointing. My first reaction is a roll of the eyes and a big, huge sigh: it sounds depressing.

I'm much happier with the art, beauty, and wise lessons from a host of people (mostly scientists) who write as if the world was a wonderful, awesome, beautiful, artful, deep, and exciting place to live in.

[gary williams]

I think people are in binds sometimes because they put themselves there, psychologically, intellectually, and/or emotionally. It *is* pitiful, especially more so if they go around saying how intelligent they are, yet not realize what kind of position they themselves are in (all the while knowing *so* damn much about where other people are at and to preach about it).

Yep.

Intelligence is like water. And like water it is a good and necessary thing. In motion it can literally move mountains and create valleys and bring life to a great many things. But also like water, if it stands still, remaining motionless, it will become stagnant and dirty.

Intelligence needs the motion of seeking insight and wisdom. It needs to flow.

Of course lava flows too. But that is another story!

gw